I am very dissapointed that we have been lied to about this event.There is one CBS female reporter that has been covering this, all the other reporters have been covering this up.On the other hand, I don't want to go to war in Libya, I am sick of wars and I think OBama is on the right track pulling out everywhere.If Romney and Issa get the country roiling about this, are we headed to another war, or can we be appalled by a 9-11 attack and do something other than send troops.

Hillary and Barry are meeting at the White House. Probably to get their stories straight. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Barry doesn't have a clue as to what happened. The only person in custody remains the film maker.

What's weird is that there was no reason to lie. We're used to terrorist and jihadis in other countries. If it was just stated as what it was, and Obama stood strongly against it, then it would have been an important, but not necessarily political issue.

I'm also interested in hearing more from Lara Logan. She, after all, is personally acclimated with the savagery of the enemy. Is she working a story for 60 Minutes about the White House covering up the situation in Afghanistan?

When we adopted our son from Colombia in 1987[Pablo Escobar, narco terrorist's peak of power]the American Embassy in Bogota was a fortress. I realize this was a consulate, but the security was inadequate to anyone w/ a fucking brain

Seems like only yesterday that a few of our resident lefties were uttering such nonsense as "Mitt's Lehman Brothers Moment," and more. Recently I watched some video clip of the President saying how he likes to know what he's talking about before he speaks. It would be a joke if it weren't so disgusting and tragic.

now Barack "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Insult The Prophet of Islam" Obama can back to the real business of the American people; enforcing probation violations of those who insult the prophet of islam.

MayBee said...Obama went to bed when the embassy was under attack and the ambassador was missing.He woke up, made a statement about Ambassador Stevens and the video, and then went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

What about that seems right to anybody?

This was about the time when Samuel Jackson was making that commercial saying, "Wake the Fuck Up!"

Instead, they just let him sleep. Perhaps it was for the best. Obama does less damage to the country when he's asleep.

That's the whole maddening thing about this. With this administration is the lying pathelogical? Or are they simply incredibly inept?Either way they don't belong in position of power. They are clearly out of their depth.

The reason for the lie is simple enough. Hillary (and likely Obama, though we have no direct information there) have been studiously ignoring the difficult security situation in Benghazi, even in the face of mounting cries for more support from the people on the spot. Now that the whole thing has blown up, and we have several corpses (including an ambassador), this policy has obviously failed rather spectacularly. For Obama (who is trying to find something in his record worth defending) this is a disaster, as it undermines his ability to claim success in foreign policy, while Hillary is now looking at a blot on her escutcheon that even the vaunted Clinton spin cycle is unlikely to be able to remove.

Since they both face disgrace if their role in this becomes evident, it isn't difficult to imagine why they at least tried to steer the storyline elsewhere. If they could convince everyone that it was just a mob of crazy muslims (and we all know that they are subhuman barbarians with poor impulse control anyway, right?), then nobody would ask any uncomfortable questions about why a planned attack wasn't foiled or at least responded to with enhanced security...

Darcy, for sure. That explains the lie. But it still seems so utterly weird to me.

If they had been honest about the events, questions about security would have been asked but nothing really would have come under it. By attempting to change the metanarrative, the details now get much more discussed.

Nothing new here--it's Nixon and Clinton all over again--but it's weird. Their first instinct was to tell a big lie.

I do not know how it happened that we went to war in Libya in the first place, nor who exactly authorized it, or why, or exactly what did we do there, and I still do not understand what this was about nor our government's reaction(s) to the mess.

This is even murkier than the "Fast & Furious" saga, and I hope there will continue to be intense pressure to find out just what has been going on here.

Meant to put this in the cafe thread last night, never did. This story is well worth the read. Bravery beyond what most of us can comprehend, followed by the kind of forgiveness we can only hope we are never called to give. Redemption for the sins of the father.

This is easy. The submission of Al Qaeda is a "success" story for the Obama administration, spiking the football. That not being the case, as demonstrated by the Benghazi incident, doesn't fit into the re-election campaign timeline. Thus politicians and political appointees lie while the career State and Intelligence folks say otherwise.

The total failure of the administration to protect our people, as well as the truth that AQ is not under control, is plenty of reason to lie. Obama has been shielded for any recriminations of is lies for years. Of course he thought this would continue. So why not lie?

I partly agree with you. It would be very hard for most people to admit responsibility for deaths. If the facts coming out are true, I don't know how anyone comes to the conclusion that this administration didn't let these people down. Powerful stuff in an election year.

I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded.

Precisely because Obama has been shielded from any recriminations of his truths as well.

Had they not made such a huge stinking deal about some an alternative, false narrative, it would not be getting such news. They could have stated the incident exactly as it happened and easily dodged any further examination.

Had the news been: the ambassador was attacked and killed, there would have been questions for a time but they would have been brushed aside. Much like Fast and Furious is.

"I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded."

And they would have succeeded too if not for those meddling kids!

What you said here is exactly true, I think. That's what makes it weird to me. Had they told the truth about the basics, it would have taken an intrepid reporter a long time to piece through what did and did not happen, probably also a congressional investigation. Would have taken months, if the issue was just about the security.

By making up the overall story, however, it becomes big news and quickly news that the administration lied about what is relatively pretty easily discoverable stuff.

The whole "mistakes were made" response might have worked if the Administration had been seen to have taken the situation seriously.

Instead, Obama goes to bed while his Ambassador and other Americans are being slaughtered, gets up the next morning, jets out to Vegas for a fundraiser and (if memory serves) some more golf.

The optics are bad, bad, bad. (Hillary's "3 a.m. wakeup call" commercial comes to mind.) And I think someone in the Whitehouse (I don't think it was Obama, I think he's out of those kinds of loops) tried to spin some preemptive damage control. And then the damage control spun out of control.

So now the tactic is to point in a different direction and say "Look! A Big Bird!"

I think having Hillary! involved just brings back how badly her husband handled terrorism during his tenure as President. They tried to view terrorist attacks against us as criminal matters, having little, if any, relationship to geopolitical realities. And, as a result, we got the Goerlich "wall" (the creator of which went on to make millions in a Fannie May sincecure) which helped prevent the FBI and CIA from communicating prior to 9/11/01, along with major cuts to our intelligence budgets and capabilities.

And, we now have almost the same people involved this time around it seems, showing again why it is physically dangerous to trust Democrats in the White House to protect us from Islamic terrorists. They just don't seem to get the fact that these people are willing and seemingly eager to die to destroy us, in order to impose their 7th Century vision on the rest of the world. And that treating them with respect, and not with a show of overwhelming power, just emboldens them.

Obama knows that bumps in the road kill American heroes all of the time. So What? Nobody lives forever.

That 12 year war in Afghanistan was a hell of a bumpy road that Obama doubled down on for political cover while he arranged the defeat of our military next summer and pulled them 100% out of Iraq after they dared a victory.

Obama hates the American military for real. He only pretends to hate rich guys, but he secretly loves them.

There is one CBS female reporter that has been covering this, all the other reporters have been covering this up.

Actually the reporters at FoxNews have been hammering away at Bengazigate from the start.

Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?

Allowed? We are seeing it as it happens in real time.

If it was just stated as what it was, and Obama stood strongly against it, then it would have been an important, but not necessarily political issue.

Everything is a political issue.

I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded.

They haven't failed yet. See any MSM outlet(other than FoxNews) using the words "scandal," "cover up" or "incompetence?" No, just that the incident was generically "tragic." Like a hurricane or an earthquake.

I predict Obama will use some sort of military action in an attempt to regain the narrative. Navy Seal team? Multiple "surgical" drone strikes? A joint US/Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would make this story go away in a heartbeat. But I think perhaps the Israelis want to wait until after the election in order to deal with a President who is on their side. Also, they probably do not want to help Obama get reelected.

The Libya story would have taken down a Republican Presidency.... But not Obama , the media will piece meal this until after the election.... But if the President had been a Republican it would be feeding frenzy, no day light... Evey day....

That's one of the reasons a can't wait to see the back of the Obama ' s get some accountabilty back in the the executive branch...

This incestiuos relationship between the media and the left in the country is disastrous for America.

Wasn't Zero hesitant about getting involved in Libya, and Clinton and others [+ other countries who actually have interests there] pushed him into it?

My point, which I forgot to make, was that the above, along with Clinton being the head of the State Dept, makes it sort of awkward for her to "throw him under the bus" without getting run over herself.

Inga- the protestors in Egypt said they were there because of the film, because Osama Bin Laden was dead, and because Ayman al-Zawarhi's brother called for protests against his brother's killing (and he attended the protests).

X, I never carried his water, why would I be mad? I stated from day one that it was a very real possibility that Benghazi was an attack. There were demonstrations against the film in Egypt however. Who knows why the attack occured in Benghazi? They don't need excuses , but they've shown that they damn well will act on any excuse, because it helps them recruit and makes them look justified in their actions to the Islamic world.

-- Because after multiple probing attacks, including an IED attack in June, they saw that security was actually lowered, they saw that the hired mercenaries were going unpaid and hungry, and they knew the armed Americans were not allowed to be as heavily armed as they could be.

So, they saw a soft target get softer with a ready and able bribe-able mercenary crew waiting for an excuse to look the other way.

In short, Benghazi was attacked because the administration screwed up.

No, you haven't at all. I'm curious why the reason they attacked would matter. Maybe my question wasn't clear, or maybe it was unfair, but my point is nothing could justify what they did, so why does it matter what they tell themselves? And really, how would we know anyway? That's all.

In her defense, I don't think she's saying it is justified. She's saying that, say, wearing provocative clothing is a bad idea. Men shouldn't rape the woman, obviously they are still the guilty party, but really, women should just cover up so as not to tempt men into rape. That general line of reasoning: The actor doing bad is -bad-, but the person who had something bad done to them could have acted differently to avoid it.

X, I said the attack on Benghazi and the demonstrations in Egypt on the SAME day, could've been a direct result of the film, I'm not saying anything new here. If new info proving the attack wasn't related to the film is uncovered, I have no reason to believe otherwise. You ALL are guessing that the film had nothing to do with either Benghzi or Egypt, we ALL are guessing, none of us know for sure...yet.

Chickelit, you seem to think that I state my opinions with keeping or losing Internet "friends" in mind? Strangers on the Internet are neither my friends or my enemies, they are commenters o a political blog. You need to quit getting so personal.

Inga said... No kidding Marshal, I'm talking about EGYPT not Benghazi, in my first comment.

10/10/12 12:10 PM

Inga said... Or are you addressing Jay?

English has this very intricate code whereby we put a series of letters at the front of a comment which, when deciphered, identify the person we are addressing. I only mention it because last week you started a comment with a series of letters which in this code identify me, but then later claimed not to be addressing me. So I thought maybe there's some different practice among lefties that explains your confusion.

. Inga has stated repeatedly and forcefully that the attacks were justified because the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video.

Well she may have, I don't know. I don't recall it, but I don't read every comment on these threads. But saying that the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video is a long way from saying that the attacks were justified.

As I noted, I asked her that question because I don't understand why the answer to her question matters. Like Mr. Sablan says, choose your questions carefully.

ST, you really ARE a whore, as you called YOURSELF in a argument with Crack a few days ago. You will LIE, you will do anything low and base to make a point, won't you? Crack was right about you, you have no morals at all.

Before we accept either that Romney is a douchebag (not saying you do accept that) or that the mother's comments are accurately characterized we should consider the likelihood that her belief Romney is using her son's death politically was likely fed to her by a reporter creating his desired story, not her independent assessment. I read a blurb on this the other day, and Romney's comments seemed more intended to recognize the deceased's contribution. It was an opening recognition, moved on from quickly.

ST, you're going to be very busy all day finding my comments that prove your despicable lies, what a pathetic person you are. Don't EVER attempt to address me in any other thread on any subject, I won't acknowledge you anymore.

You're right about Romney's words, Marshal. I watched the video this morning. He did end his comments with regard to that recollection with something like "That's what Americans do!"

Very moving, but not particularly political as far as pointing to any issue in the campaign. I'll bet you're right and the comments were mischaracterized to the mother. Or it could just be that she feels any mention of her son on the campaign trail is inappropriate, I don't know.

He should refrain from mentioning him again regardless. But it really is a sad state of affairs that this is deemed offensive on Romney's part.

Well, Althouse got a shout-out by Rush this morning so her street cred just went up a little more. The leftards around her will start throwing their hate her way and label her a war-mongering, xenophobic, right winger, conservative kook-bag. It'll happen.

Just sayin'. You keep telling chick to stop being so personal while you attack a lot of people personally.

And you did think that we should limit free speech due to what you thought was the fallout from it. You were not "wait and seeing". And you DID think the government should turn over every rock of this filmmaker's life to see if they could find something he'd done wrong. Well, they did, and he was arrested.

The issue is not whether she knows what she said, but rather whether the question she responded to accurately reflected what Romney said about her son. Note how slyly - and dishonestly - garage mischaracterized what I wrote as an attack on the mother.

You can see how garage misspent his eduation. He learned how to mischaracterize and misdirect rather than learning something productive. Probably why he believes unproductive people should run the country.

Don't get in the way of Obama's outreach to the Muslim on the street, even if it's just more incompetence and lack of leadership. They acted on the intelligence they had.

Even if the Muslim on the street can't conceive of freedom of speech, and is spitting mad and demanding an apology for any perceived slight and militantly upset at our way of life, he doesn't know what's best for him! They're so melodramatic!

Slowly, if we show that our power is not a threat, that there's a 'family of nations' welcoming the Muslim on the street away from the embrace of unreformed, unenlightened Islam and its moral absolutism, its tribal, militaristic and usually autocratic and backward societies...

...wait...check that...all of those Muslims are 'moderate' and civilized (like Americans waiting to jump out) and only the extremists post a threat...

then we win! Peace is next! The seas have stopped rising and Prince Barry the healer has bridged the divide.

***DISCLAIMER, Gitmo, the Afghanistan surge, drone strikes and "kinetic military action" will be used in selected countries to protect our citizens, not to be discussed during this or any other election season.

Barry's slowly guiding the 'narrative' folks. In a few generations, we'll have world peace, social justice, and equality for all.

Look folks, trying to shove Inga's words in her defense of not insulting Islam as a function of what occurred in Libya and Egypt as a means to get her to admit that she in fact and repeatedly has stated that she believes that the 1st Amendment shouldn't come into effect in insulting Islam and that we should all not offend Islam will simply not work. She will lie, twist, parse, obfuscate, conflate, prevaricate, and use any means necessary to hide, if she can, any and all references to what she said when these attacks first occurred. We know it, we saw her say it, she defended it multiple times that the film maker (even though it wasn't his fault) shouldn't be afforded 1st amendment protections in offending a religion, in this case Islam.

You will be subjected to her nonsense over and over again, she will carpet bomb the entire thread to make it so that she will appear the victim while the attackers (you) will be be busy defended your attacks against her while her original intent goes unchallenged and hidden.

We all know that the attacks were terrorist attacks, we know that the administration lied about it for nearly 10 days, they are still lying about it contrary to evidence. The MSM wishes it would go away by not reporting it and running cover for the administration and Inga is just another unwitting tool in that struggle to squelch the truth while the 1st amendment gets the life choked out of it so she and her other comrades in the left, liberal, and progressive movements can continue the assaults on The Constitution overall. This is the goal, this is the endgame, this is what they want. They/she will tell you otherwise, but her/they're very nature condemns them for what they are. 5th column enemies of this country.

Inga is defending, in her own special way, a religion that has no moderation in it, sees everyone, even it's own as infidels, has precepts that allows for it's worshipers and agents to use any form of subterfuge for it's dissemination and infiltration to any other society and religion to use whatever means necessary to bring about that collapse so that Islam will prevail. She is in essence, through sheer ignorance that Islam and jihadism is nothing more than the ongoing wing of Nazism except instead of a swastika, it's replaced with a crescent. There is more than ample proof and evidence that Islam and the Nazi Party were fellow travelers and collaborators and even though one is replaced with another. The Muslim Brotherhood found a much larger purchase and legitimacy through that alliance which was largely funded by the 3rd Reich. The Mufti of Jerusalm, Amin al-Husseini, The head of the Supreme Muslim Council worked directly with Hitler to conscript Arab jihadists at the time to become Waffen SS. It is still going on today and has expanded beyond the brotherhood and the 'Arab' spring.

This is what Inga and her ilk defend, wittingly or unwittingly. Anyone, in my opinion, who defends this repulsive woman is in effect is defending Nazism and Islamic Jihad, which is what all of Islam is. Period.

President Obama gets her son murdered and goes to bed, offhandedly refers to the deaths as a "bump in the road" in a campaign speech in Vegas, uses those deaths as a pretext to arrest a guy for posting a YouTube video, and repeatedly lies about the circumstances of these deaths for weeks. Epic.

(But, in fairness to mom, if she's getting her news from the usual sources all of that may new to her.)

And then this Romney dude comes out and says her son was stand-up guy, and that he's proud to even have briefly met him.

Truth hurts that which is evil, namely you. You know you said it, you know you defended it. It's all there. You're credibility is less than zero. You are too busy defending yourself and portraying yourself again as the victim in all of this, again, and you are simply a liar. You can deflect it any way you want, but the facts are there to name you as such. You are a shameless saboteur of the truth.

Your pointless characterizations of anyone who calls you out is meaningless. You're words mean and hold no sway in attempting to deflect that you are a repulsive, evil human being who defended a religion that would kill you while you tried to pacify it. You are born and bred of a society that embraced and help to shape it's goals of today. You are an agent of an ideology that promotes death and immorality while trying to paint yourself as an arbiter of an ideology that sees itself as the rescuer of mankind through dissemination of authoritarian control of a citizens life via government sanction. Oh, you may not articulate it that way, but thinking instead a little honey is better than a bitter herb to forward the cause. Right, comrade?

Stop trying to hide it and claim you are the oh, so poor innocent little woman living somewhere in Wisconsin taking care of the needy, the poor, the downtrodden, the ill, the maimed. I know what you are and others here do too. You can never hide from the light of that truth, lady. You've been unveiled for a long time.

Well, that's just because you are to fucking dumb to even think that deep. You're thinking is about as deep as a children play pool. I won't disgrace this Seals mothers opinion by bashing her since she has earned every right to say whatever she wants without repercussion. But I knew both of those guys that died in Benghazi and they were both hero's for what they did and what they did to save many lives hasn't even been reported by the MSM and never will.

"Ah, the issue here is this mother doesn't trust Romney and she wants him to shut the fuck up about her kid."

I don't care either way, frankly. Her son was a grown man, a soldier. I'm sorry his mother is forced to deal with the grief resulting from her son's senseless death. Right now, however, we're in the midst of a public discussion of national security, and she has no special moral authority to demand anyone be silent.

Another fine specimen of Althouse's conservatives that repel and disgust liberals and moderates.

And you repeat that repugnant line again as if it has meaning in any way, shape or form. Liberals aren't worthy of any of the legacy this country has to offer. They should seek refuge elsewhere. Moderates are just simpletons in liberal form. Murky in their thinking and timid in their actions. For you to try and non-sequitor your way out of this is laughable. You are the enemy of this country and what it stands for. You may not say it directly, but we know what you are. Deal with it.

Hang on. I will not call Inga evil. I think that's wrong. Just like I think it's wrong to call someone "good".

I think people can choose to do evil, and we can choose to do good. I think we've all done both. I know that I have.

Then don't call her evil. Let her continue to co-opt the narrative and set the tone, once again for the flailing she does. Evil has many forms and many shades, from overt to subtle, but it's still evil. Maybe you don't have the stomach for it, and that's fine. But frankly, I see her for what she is.

This is the greatest country on earth that has ever been produced by any group of people anywhere at any time. There is none like it, there will be none like it again. This is the only one and it harbors people like her because it's values and laws allow for it. She and others like her shit on it daily. I won't have it.

Romney will no longer tell the story honoring her son because she wanted Romney to stop:http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/10/romney-wont-tell-story-of-meeting-former-seal-killed-in-benghazi-after-seals-mom-objects/

So is he still a douchebag?

After all, the mom has absolute moral authority because her son died. Remember Cindy Sheehan?

Of course, this woman has no such moral authority, because she doesn't abhor Republicans.

Then:Five days after the attack, citing the best information she had at the time, United Nations ambassador Susan Rice tied the violence to the video protests, in line with a CIA memo that said the Benghazi crowds "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo"

Now:But in a briefing yesterday, Hillary Clinton's State Department said they never believed such accounts, with officials blaming "others" in the executive branch for those conclusions.

A United States Ambassador was shot and killed, and dragged through the streets. Upon hearing this, our President went to sleep. He then went to party in Vegas, where he referred to the death of the Ambassador as a "bump in the road." He then went to visit his buddies JayZ and Beyonce and their $350,000 champagne fountain. Then he went on Letterman (but couldn't come within 6 trillion dollars of guessing the US Debt. He went to visit his friends on "The View," instead of visiting with US Allies who were in town at the time, because he was too busy.

Well, of course the outrage of the day is that Romney dared to praise and honor the memory of a Seal who died.

Just like the outrage of the day(s) after the Benghazi attack was that Romney dared to make a forceful statement denouncing the attacks and dared to criticize the admin statements of implicit apology to/for the "protesters" (re video).

Outrage! What a douchebag. Got that MSM, let's lead with that. The day of the hearings into Benghazi debacle and cover-up, the story is: Romney "gaffe"! Garage is always sure to inform us of the talking point of the day, very helpful.

Like god, if Romney gaffes didn't exist (even when they don't), it would still be necessary (and is necessary) for the MSM to invent them.

What has President Obama done in response to the death of our Ambassador?

Anything?

Does anyone really want to re-elect a President that blows off* the murder of an Ambassador?

*until I get some evidence to the contrary, yes, that is the most accurate description of President Obama's demonstrated attitude to date. He went to sleep with the Ambassador missing, went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the same day as receiving the news of the Ambassador's death, sent in an FBI team (treated it as a crime, rather than an attack on the US), and is talking more about his debate and Big Bird than the sacrifice these people gave for the nation.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.Link